Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 8:27 - 8:38
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_8:27-38. See on Mat_16:13-27. Comp. Luk_9:18-26.
ἐξῆλθεν ] from Bethsaida (Julias), Mar_8:22.
εἰς τ . κώμας Καισαρ .] into the villages belonging to the region of Caesarea.
Mar_8:28. With the reading ὅτι εἷς τῶν προφητῶν (see the critical remarks), εἶ is to be supplied. Matthew was the more careful to insert the name of Jeremiah from the collection of Logia, because he wrote for Jews.
Mar_8:29. Mark and Luke omit what Matthew relates in Mar_8:17-19. Generally, Matthew is here fuller and more original in drawing from the collection of Logia. According to Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact (comp. Wetstein, Michaelis, and others), Mark has omitted it on purpose: ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ χαριζόμενος τῷ Πέτρῳ κ . τ . λ . According to B. Bauer, the narrative of Matthew has only originated from the consciousness of the hierarchy. Both these views are arbitrary, and the latter rests on quite a groundless presupposition. As the remarkable saying of Jesus to Peter, even if it had been omitted in the collection of Logia (Holtzmann), cannot have been unknown to Mark and cannot have its place supplied by Mar_3:16, it must be assumed that he purposely abstained from including it in this narrative, and that probably from some sort of consideration, which appeared to him necessary, for Gentile-Christian readers.[115] Thus he appears to have foregone its insertion from higher motives. To Luke, with his Paulinism, this passing over of the matter was welcome. The omission furnishes no argument against the Petrine derivation of our Gospel (in opposition to Baur, Markusevang. p. 133 f.), but it is doubtless irreconcilable with its subserving a special Petrine interest, such as is strongly urged by Hilgenfeld and Köstlin. Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 58 f. And to invoke the conception of a mediating Petrinism (see especially, Köstlin, p. 366 f.), is to enter on a field too vague and belonging to later times. Observe, moreover, that we have here as yet the simplest form of Peter’s confession. The confession itself has not now for the first time come to maturity, but it is a confirmation of the faith that has remained unchangeable from the beginning. Comp. on Mat_15:17.
Mar_8:31.[116] τῶν πρεσβ . κ . τῶν ἀρχ . κ . τῶν ΓΡΑΜΜ .] Although these three form one corporation (the Sanhedrim), still each class is specially brought before us by repetition of the article, which is done with rhetorical solemnity.
μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρ .] after the lapse of three days. Comp. Mat_27:63. More definitely, but ex eventu, Matt. and Luke have: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ , with which ΜΕΤᾺ ΤΡ . ἩΜ ., according to the popular way of expression, is not at variance. See Krebs, Obs. p. 97 f.
Mar_8:32. καὶ παῤῥησίᾳ κ . τ . λ .] a significant feature introduced by Mark, with the view of suggesting a still more definite motive for Peter’s subsequent conduct: and openly (without reserve, frankly and freely) He spoke the word (Mar_8:31). παῤῥησίᾳ stands opposed to speaking in mere hints, obscurely, figuratively (Joh_11:14; Joh_16:25; Joh_16:29).
ἘΠΙΤΙΜ .] to make reproaches, namely, ὡς εἰς θάνατον ῥίπτοντ ἑαυτὸν ἐξὸν μηδὲν παθεῖν , Theophylact. But “Petrus dum increpat, increpationem meretur,” Bengel. Comp. ἐπετίμησε , Mar_8:33.
Mar_8:33. ΚΑῚ ἸΔῺΝ ΤΟῪς ΜΑΘΗΤᾺς ΑὐΤΟῦ ] when He had turned Himself towards him and beheld His disciples. The latter clause gives more definitely the reason for the stern outburst of the censure of Jesus; He could not but set an example to the disciples, whom He beheld as witnesses of the scene. Moreover, in ἐπιστραφείς there is a different conception from that of ΣΤΡΑΦΕΊς , Mat_16:23.
Mar_8:34. Jesus now makes a pause; for what He has to say now is to be said to all who follow Him. Hence He calls to Him the multitude that accompanies Him, etc. Mark alone has clearly this trait, by which the ὄχλος is expressly brought upon the scene also (Luke at Mar_9:23 relates after him, but with less clearness). Comp. Mar_7:14. This is to be explained by the originality of the Gospel, not by the ΠΡῸς ΠΆΝΤΑς of Luk_9:23 (which de Wette thinks Mark misunderstood). Comp. Hilgenfeld, Markusevang. p. 61.
ὅστις ] quicunque, not at variance with the sense (Fritzsche), but as appropriate as εἴ τις .
ἀκολουθ .] both times in the same sense of discipleship. See, moreover, on Mat_10:38.
Mar_8:35. See on Mat_10:39. τ . ἑαυτοῦ ψ .] expression of self-sacrifice; His own soul He spares not.
Mar_8:37. τί γάρ (see the critical remarks) gives the reason for the negative sense of the previous question.
Mar_8:38. ΓΆΡ ] proves from the law of the retribution, which Jesus will fully carry out, that no ransom can be given, etc. Whosoever shall have been ashamed to receive me and my doctrines—of Him the Messiah shall also be ashamed (shall not receive him for His kingdom, as being unworthy) at the Parousia! As to ἐπαισχυνθ ., comp. on Rom_1:16.
Τῇ ΜΟΙΧΑΛΊΔΙ ] see on Mat_12:39. This bringing into prominence of the contrast with the Lord and His words, by means of ἘΝ Τῇ ΓΕΝΕᾷ … ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛῷ , is only given here in the vivid delineation of Mark; and there is conveyed in it a deterrent power, namely, from making common cause with this γενεά by the denial of Christ. The comparison of Mat_12:39; Mat_16:4, is not, on account of the very dissimilarity of the expressions, to be used either for or against the originality of Mark, against which, according to Weiss, also ΣΏΣΕΙ , Mar_8:35 (Matt.: ΕὙΡΉΣΕΙ , which Luke also has), is supposed to tell. Nevertheless, Κ . ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ , Mar_8:35, is an addition of later tradition.
Ὁ ΥἹῸς Τ . ἈΝΘΡΏΠ .] Bengel aptly says: “Nunc non ego, sed filius hominis, quae appellatio singularem cum adventu glorioso visibili nexum habet.” Comp. Mar_14:62.
And as to this mighty decision, how soon shall it emerge! Mar_9:1. What warning and encouragement in this promise!
[115] Beza, however, justly asks: “Quis crediderit, vel ipsum Petrum vel Marcum praeteriturum fuisse illud Tu es Petrus, si ecclesiae Christianae fundamentum in his verbis situm esse existimassent?”
[116] The view that Jesus Himself now for the first time clearly foresaw His death (Weizsäcker, p. 475; Keim, geschichtl. Chr. p. 45), conflicts, even apart from the narrative of John, with Mar_2:20. Comp. on Mat_16:21. Moreover, we cannot get rid of the mention of the Parousia, Mat_10:23, and the interpretation of the sign of Jonah, Mat_12:39 f. (comp. on Luk_11:30).